Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy

Archive 1: May 2006

The Catholic Encyclopedia

I think that using material from the CE is a good idea, but since the public domain editions are all pre-1923, we should not use entire articles, but merely sections from it with other updated material. --Ronconte 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. See Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics. —Mira 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Theological Disagreements

How should we handle theological disagreements? There are many theological questions within any topic that are a matter of legitimate dispute among theologians and the faithful. It is not always clear what is and is not official Church teaching. --Ronconte 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To the extent, that it is clear that there is an official Church teaching, that should be documented with supporting source citations. If there is room for debate, that should also be stated. However, in these cases, it may be difficult to source the fact that there isn't an official Church teaching so we will have to be satisfied with mentioning the different positions with source citations of who wrote it and where.

--Richard 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, how should we approach the widespread dissent against official Church teaching among Catholics? Should many articles have a section for the dissenting point of view? The same question arises when Protestants disagree with Catholic teaching. Should be have a section in each article saying why Protestants disagree on each point? --Ronconte 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been the subject of a long discussion that started on Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church but moved to Talk:Roman Catholic Church. See the sections titled "The 'Assessment of Church Doctrine' Section", "Where to put criticism of Catholic doctrine and church governance?", "Mass Merging" and "An Alternate Proposal"

The consensus after all this discussion was to fold the criticism into specific articles (e.g. Catholic Church and human sexuality). Thus, there would be a statement of the Catholic Church's position on various aspects of human sexuality followed by a statement of criticisms of those positions. I'm not sure if it would be Position on A, Position on B, Position on C followed by Criticism of A, Criticism of B, etc. or Position on A followed by Criticism of A, etc.

To the extent that criticisms differ between Catholics and Protestants, these differences should be drawn so that the reader understands which positions are dissents from withih the Church vs. criticisms from without the Church.

--Richard 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, there can be no authentic dissent if the topic has been decided and stated as a Dogma. One must hold and believe the doctrines stated by the Church, so they also can't be fodder for dissent. If the topic is up in the air, then have at it. poopsix 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That is merely the party line, Poopsix, and does not reflect facts on the ground. The facts on the ground are that many Catholics can, and do, disagree with official Church teachings, even with Dogma. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts on the ground are that there are a lot of people claiming membership in the Church who are not actually members. One sorts out actual membership by willingness to follow the rules on the mandatory issues, that is to say, dogma. At the same time, there should remain recognition that heresy is not the sole province of the laity, that there are clerical heretics and that legitimate dissent can be illegitimately illegitimized by false claims of violating dogma. It's a difficult problem and one that has plagued the Church in the past. TMLutas 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The party line, and who gets to define it, is clear enough in Catholicism. Of course there are dissidents, and they can have their place in the articles, but for starters, the Catechism or the Pope are good authoritative sources of "what Catholics believe," while university theologians are not always good authoritative ources of such things. The.helping.people.tick 11:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The lines between different relgions are usually clearly drawn, often with WP:RELY sources. Not so often with people who "are more Catholic than the pope." Some might not "like" the church's position on birth control, but can hardly arrange their disagreement in a WP:RELY manner for presentation here. Their disagreements tend to me more shrill than thoughtful or encyclopedic. Nor is it easy to obtain a count of people who disagree. Just somebody who got some media's attention on a slow day? Or a real fundamental disagreement worth presenting in a thoughtful manner? Student7 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Subdividing the workload

It would be easier to subdivide up the Catholic world into national and archepiscopal subProjects. Not all we need to address is at a world level. I have templates that are appropriate for the local diocesan level, with no real place to categorize them. Others might find them of use or be able to adapt them to their purpose. Far too voluminous at the American national level, to say nothing of the world level. There are a lot of us who prefer to work at a diocesan level or even lower. Some of us have been developing "standards" at a local level with no real forum to discuss them. Student7 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Category merge

Does anyone want to weigh-in on these proposed merges? They involve removing separate categories for minor basilicas. --Bwpach (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was to merge the categories.

If there are no objections, I will propose that Category:Basilica churches in Australia be renamed "Basilica churches in Oceania", and that Category:Basilica churches of New Zealand be merged into it, for the following reasons: 1)There is only 1 article for New Zealand 2)That's the way archdioceses are grouped 3)The Vatican uses this terminology 4)An article for the basilica in Guam will not have a sub-category under the current system, when/if it is created. --Bwpach (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lede for Richard Stika and controversy

Am looking for input RE modifying the lede of Richard Stika in light of the multiple cases of sexual abuse cover ups in his diocese. CF the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stika Maximilian775 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)